AWin - peace of mind on ‘Closed Group’ PPC programmes

[8601cam]

Tweet

As many of you are aware, there have been several threads throughout this forum regarding the impact of closed PPC groups on merchant brands and the impact this has on overwriting previous affiliate cookies when returning visitors type the brand into a search engine and click the affiliate sponsored brand link.

Woolworths have been conducting a trial with a specific affiliate namely eConversions on the viability of running their paid search through the affiliate channel. Aside from the obvious benefits a move like this would entail for affiliate marketing certain questions have been raised as to the benefits of allowing any affiliate to have closed brand rights for PPC.

In order to address the main opening point and the effect this will have for any similar AWin programme, I feel it necessary to highlight some of the mechanics surrounding the Woolworths and eConversions arrangement.

Firstly the key decision behind bringing brand PPC into the affiliate channel is to secure a much larger market share of the ‘generic’ keyword market. To this end eConversions have been closely monitored and performance from this ‘generic’ keyword pool is separated and has been the gauge of success. Commissions for brand PPC were greatly reduced in order to achieve Woolworths desired CPA overall for affiliate PPC against other paid search channels. Both brand and generic elements were separated allowing full transparency on performance with AWin monitoring the referrer data to ensure clarity.

The campaign ran pre-Christmas and then again for March and the indications have been strong that eConversions were able to achieve both the volume for generic keyword based sales and the overall CPA for this channel.

However in order to look at the longer term strategy for this activity we have worked closely with Woolworths and eConversions to ensure pre-existing affiliate cookies are not overwritten if a visitor returns via the affiliate sponsored brand link. A solution is now in place and has been active since the end of last week.

We recognise that many affiliates help bring this issue to the attention of all networks and merchants and we would like to thank you for your patience whilst a solution was developed and tested. Whilst controlled brand PPC is strictly limited to a handful of merchants on the AWin network, the above process will now be considered standard practice for affiliates. We are working on implementing these changes as soon as possible.

As a final note AWin feel that affiliate brand bidding in isolation adds no value to any merchant programme, however controlled PPC activity with or without brand can add significant value if carefully monitored within set parameters. Every merchant programme is different and assessed on a case by case basis as the factors governing suitability and performance vary. Likewise, any affiliate wishing consideration for closed PPC activity need only liaise with AW and be able to demonstrate a track record of generic keyword performance within suitable sectors and ideally with the merchant in question. Final choice however, generally lies with the merchant and may entail face to face meetings, presentations, forecasts and as we all know an element of risk.

Kind Regards

Mark

[drivetowin]

Hi Mark

Thanks for the clarification and transparency. Good to see that content affiliates cookies will now not be overwritten.

[Paul Wright]

Mark, the honest approach in this instance by eConversions and AW is much appreciated by many I'm sure.

Cheers
Paul

[hpops]

We utterly applaud the transparency demonstrated by all parties involved. A workable solution within this space is long overdue.

[8601cam]

Thanks Keith/Paul/Duncan,

We've followed these issues (and others) and its always great to make changes that will positively reflect on affiliates and all parties have been keen to implement this new process.

Networks have often been seen as less proactive when it comes to system revisions. Hopefully this will be the first of many changes that will further enhance the opportunities through the affiliate channel. It's by no means perfect but if we listen and learn we'll all get there.

I welcome your feedback and look forward to keeping you updated on progress.

Kind Regards

Mark

[Rich]

It's good to see the openness of this. Though I still don't really get the idea of giving away brand bidding rights as a way to get more generic exposure. It would seem to fit better with the pay performance model to pay more for the generic traffic and keep the brand traffic in house.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

It's a transparent & postive step forward & some of the previous comments can be echoed both in a golf clap for the explanation & openess in finding & presenting a solution to reassure & protect affiliates above & beyond most other networks ....

As well as Rich's poignant question to which I will add one of my own.

What is the whitelist of keywords for what are considered brand terms? Does this include all the variations & mispellings & what these actually are? For example any phrase containing "wool" "wol" "worth(s)" "woth(s)" as singular or part of compound words / strings & any other potential typical tyographical & qwerty errors along with urls.

[3wdl]

Thanks for the clarification and transparency. Good to see that content affiliates cookies will now not be overwritten.

Indeed - that is my big issue with brand name bidding and it's fantastic to see that a network (and I'm not surprised that it's AWIN) have ensured that it is sorted from their end.

Well done Mark et all.

[8601cam]

Thanks for the feedback Rich, Paul and James,

The whole issue surrounding PPC and Brand is fraught with controversy. From affiliates incorrectly accused of brand bidding and Google actively encouraging competitor AdWords placement to merchants having limited understanding of this space or affiliates trying to turn a fast buck. This change is hopefully just one step of many and only when coupled with consistent education and policing can we expect to be taken seriously by merchants as a justified alternative to 3rd party search.

Rich, each solution has to be reviewed on a merchant by merchant basis. In this instance (and I hope I'm not speaking wrongly on behalf of anyone), Woolworths do not have in-house PPC capabilities. They choose to work on an agreed CPA basis, with the affiliate partner taking the CPC cost and risk. Including brand merely extends this reach as the affiliate still needs to work to an average CPA even though the commission is considerably less and success is measured by the volume delivered from generics on an ongoing basis.

There was a time when this may have resulted in most of the sales being brand PPC. However with the visibility required by Woolworths and offered by AWin this just isn't possible anymore and the affiliate has to reinvest and manage both sides of the equation in order to add the necessary value.

Paul, I'm not sure what the right answer would be, so here is how it's currently set up. Woolworths have a selected list of top tier 'brand' terms which include the general misspells. It is not exhaustive or indeed comprehensive but in their mind covers the bulk of what they would consider to be currently covered by the affiliate. All of these terms are included within this new set-up, so if any prior affiliate visitor were to return via any of these 'brand' affiliate links the original cookie will not be overwritten.

I hope this feedback has helped add any necessary clarity.

Kind Regards

Mark

[Qui Gon Jinn]

I appreciate what you are trying to do, hopefully this would include hybrids too, but the easiest solution might be that if there is a closed brand bidding group, then the cookie should NEVER overwrite other content affiliate cookies, then perhaps the appeal of BBG's to the familiar parties will gradually diminish & then there is no confusion on what is & isn't brand, misspells, variations, typographical errors & hybrids.

[8601cam]

Paul, I think I understand better what you mean now sorry, it's been a long day

Just to be clear, any brand related term for Woolworths covered by eConversions does not overwrite prior affiliate cookies.

eConversions were tasked during the trial with 2 elements;

1. A specific pool of brand keywords including agreed classic misspells and derivations of Woolworths.

2. Pure generic keyword activity.

In this instance there are currently no hybrid or non-inclusive brand misspells in the 'generic' group that could either skew the test or affect prior cookies. I've trawled through this data on both sides and can confirm that.

I agree that in order to avoid confusion any brand related term needs to be included within the brand pool and that this should not just cover the main terms but all derivations. If Woolworths decide to extend the remit for eConversions surrounding brand terms then have no doubt these will be covered and content affiliates will continue to be protected.

Thanks for pushing the point as this additional clarity should be helpful to everyone.

Kind Regards

Mark

[renegade]

Well done AW for posting the thread. I'm reassured the affiliates who have been closely following the brand PPC saga generally seem to be happy this is a workable solution.
Although I'm not personally involved with any closed PPC groups and only ever run generic keyword PPC campaigns I, no doubt along with other affiliates, have been concerned brand PPC campaigns would adversely affect affiliate sales so I'm adding this to my one less thing to worry about list.